DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamamushi (US 2020/0234931).
As for claim 1, Tamamushi shows a substrate processing apparatus comprising: a plasma processing chamber (10, fig. 1); a substrate support that is provided in the plasma processing chamber and supports a substrate (13, fig. 1); and a shower head facing the substrate support, the shower head including: a shower plate formed with a plurality of gas introduction ports through each of which a gas is discharged (36, 34a, fig. 1); a cooling plate (37, fig. 1, [0072]) holding the shower plate (36, fig. 1, [0072]) and formed with a coolant passage through which a coolant is supplied and a plurality of gas supply flow paths (37c, fig. 1, [0072]); and a plurality of gas diffusion chambers formed between the shower plate and the cooling plate (37b, fig. 1), each of the plurality of gas diffusion chambers communicating with each of the plurality of gas supply flow paths and each one or more of the plurality of gas introduction ports (37a, 37d, fig. 1), respectively, wherein at least a part of the coolant passage is disposed above a heat transfer surface between the shower plate and the cooling plate, in a plan view (37c).
As for claim 2, Tamamushi shows each gas diffusion chamber (37b, fig. 1, [0073]) is formed with an upper surface of the shower plate and a recessed groove formed on a lower surface of the cooling plate (30, 37, fig. 1), and the one or more of the plurality of gas introduction ports of the shower plate communicate with each of the plurality of gas diffusion chambers (34a, 37b, fig. 1).
As for claims 7 and 8, Tamamushi shows the coolant passage is disposed immediately above the heat transfer surface, in the plan view (37c, fig. 1, illustrated above the heat transfer surface between 36 and 37).
As for claims 9-10, Tamamushi shows a bottom surface of the coolant passage is disposed at a position lower than a ceiling surface of the gas diffusion chamber (37c, fig. 1, illustrated below 38 which is also below the ceiling surface of the gas diffusion chamber).
As for claims 11-12, Tamamushi shows the coolant passage is disposed to surround at least part of the plurality of the gas diffusion chambers (37c, 37b, fig. 1).
As for claims 13-14, Tamamushi shows the shower plate is formed of any one of Si, SiC, Si02, and Al ([0071], aluminum), and the cooling plate is formed of any one of Al, SiC, or metal matrix composites ([0072], aluminum).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamamushi as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
As for claims 3-4, Tamamushi discloses a height from the heat transfer surface of the cooling plate in contact with the shower plate to a lower surface of the coolant passage (distance between bottom of 37c to the interface between 37 and 36, fig. 1) and the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing a height from the heat transfer surface of the cooling plate in contact with the shower plate to a lower surface of the coolant passage is equal to or more than 3 mm and equal to or less than 20 mm. However, fig. 1 illustrates a scale that might indicate a separation of 3 mm – 20 mm, although the exact dimensions are not identified in the specification. It would be obvious to try a separation of 3 mm – 20 mm since the distance between a cooling passage to a heat exchange surface is a result effective variable in which less of a gap between them increases the amount of heat exchange. In addition, the application does not disclose any unexpected benefits associated with the separation value of 3 mm – 20 mm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 5-6 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose a partial coolant passage disposed along a boundary between the gas diffusion chamber and the heat transfer surface with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. The closest prior art is found in Roy (US 2012/0285658) which teaches the coolant passage (518, fig. 6, [0079]) includes a partial coolant passage ([0079], “additional cooling passages”) disposed along a boundary between the cooling passage (518, fig. 6) and the heat transfer surface (512, fig. 6) but not between the gas diffusion chamber and the heat transfer surface. As such, Roy does not cure all of the deficiencies of Tamamushi
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762